1 / 22

Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:

Learn about the changes to NIH research proposal formats and peer review enhancements, including the impact on early-stage investigators and the goal of streamlining time to award.

bohm
Download Presentation

Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later: What the New Format Means to You Barry L. Taylor, Ph.D. Loma Linda University

  2. Background on Peer Review Enhancements Goals of Peer Review Enhancements § Recognize changing nature of research; identify and encourage new and early stage investigators; ease burden on research enterprise; and streamline time to award § Fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least amount of administrative burden

  3. A new strategy for the NIH research proposal

  4. A new strategy for the NIH research proposal •  Resources.  The Facilities and Other Resources section will be changed to require a description of how the scientific environment will contribute to the probability of success of the project, unique features of the environment, and for Early Stage Investigators, the institutional investment in the success of the investigator (e.g. resources, classes, etc.).The Facilities and Other Resources section ispart of the R&R Other Project Information in the SF 424 (R&R) application, and part of the Resources Format Page in the paper PHS 398 application. • Biographical Sketch • A new Personal Statement will be incorporated as Part A, changing the parts formerly called A, B, and C to Parts B, C, and D.  • Applicants should limit the list of selected peer-reviewed publications to no more than 15.  These 15 publications should be chosen on the basis of recency, importance to the field, and relevance to the proposed research.

  5. A. Evaluation Form

  6. B. Evaluation Form Scored Review Criteria -cont

  7. C. Evaluation Form

  8. The NIH Grant Application Scoring System The NIH scoring system uses a 9-point rating scale from 1 = Exceptional to 9 = Poor for the overall impact/priority score as well as the individual review criteria. Ratings are provided only in whole numbers, not decimals.

  9. A new strategy for the NIH research proposal

  10. A. Instructions to Study Section • 5.Presentations/Discussions of applications • ·Presentations should follow the review template. They should be very concise and clearly emphasize the Significance and Overall Impact of the proposed work on the field. • The Chair will announce the application and ask for statement of preliminary scores of 3 assigned reviewers • ·Before the discussion begins, panel members will have one minute to read the Aims of the application, so the Primary Reviewer need not summarize the goals of the application • ·Primary reviewer first evaluates the Significanceof the work. This is not the significance of the field, but the significance of the proposed work. Please point out how the study will influence its specific area of research. • ·Next discuss other criteria in order that they occur in the template: Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment - highlighting the Strengths and Weaknesses in bullet form. If a category does not affect the Overall Impact score then no need to discuss it.

  11. B. Instructions to Study Section ·We should not talk about details of specific aims unless there is something that affects the Overall Impact and needs to be highlighted. ·Finally, summarize the Overall Impact of the application by addressing the “the likelihood of the project to exert a sustained powerful influence on the field”. Is overall impact of the work high, moderate or low? Is the work likely to be published in high impact journals or something less? ·This should all take no longer than 4 minutes ·Other reviewers - identify major issues with which you agree and disagree (no need to go into long description of points that were already raised) and raise any issues not brought up previously that you feel should influence the score. ·After the assigned reviewers have presented there should be a discussion about the application including any questions, any additional points that need to be brought up or emphasized, and most importantly, whether the Overall IMPACT score matches the discussion. ·Criteria scores shouldnot be discussed during the meeting. These provide additional information to the applicants. Only assigned reviewers should supply criteria scores. They shouldbe revised during the Edit Phase if you change your mind about a score

  12. Project Narrative • Remember the audience • Beware of snipers

  13. Comparison of Success Rates

More Related